Order no.4, dt. 1.03.2023

Today is fixed for hearing of this M.A. case and for filing show cause by the complainant.

Both sides are found ready.

Heard both sides. Considered submission.

This petition has been filed by the op/ applicants u/s 38(8) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 praying that this case is not maintainable as the disputes involved in this case is in between labour and factory owner.

On the other hand it is main point of contention and argument of the op/ complainant side that this case is maintainable as the complainant is a consumer under the eye of law.

For the purpose of arriving at just and proper decision in this case, this District Commission after going through the materials of this case record finds that the disputes involved in this case is relating to labour disputes and/ or industrial disputes which comes under the purview of Factories Act and Industrial Disputes Act. So, the disputes in between the factory owner and labour cannot be tried in this District Commission. Moreover, the complainant is not a consumer u/s 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Moreso, the complaint case no. 110 of 2021 has been filed for commercial purpose. In this regard it is settled principle of law that consumer as defined in the above noted Section of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, he will have to establish that services were availed exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self employment. This legal principle has been observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shrikant G. Mantri vs. Punjab National Bank which is reported in II (2022) CPJ 9 (SC). In this complaint case the complainant has failed to produce any document to establish that he is running the factory for the purpose of earning his livelihood.

A cumulative consideration of the above noted discussion goes to show that the C.C. case no. 110 of 2021 is not maintainable in the eye of law. As a result of which this M.A. case is required to be allowed.

In the result, it is accordingly

Ordered

that this M.A. case no. 75 of 2022 be and the same is allowed on contest.

It is held that the complaint case no. 110 of 2021 is found not maintainable and this District Commission has no jurisdiction to try this case. So, the complaint case no. 110 of 2021 be and the same is dismissed on contest.

No order is passed as to costs.

Let the case record of M.A. case no. 75 of 2022 be tagged with the original case record of C.C. case no. 110 of 2021.